but back to Torger's way of thinking I guess that a rod can only add one free metamagic whereas using a rod combined with Spell Perfection might add two.
Which was not possible pre APG.
Yup you've got my position exactly.
- Torger
The CRB gives characters monster abilities, including pounce, via polymorph spells, beast shape II in particular. Bestiary 1, the CRB's direct counterpart, has "monsters as PC" rules with many templates including lycanthropes which get pounce by taking many were-forms. There are several avenues to that goal.
The CRB gives characters monster abilities, including pounce, via polymorph spells, beast shape II in particular.
Does it give them to pure martials? There's a big difference between a druid getting pounce when he wild shapes and a full BaB pure martial class getting pounce all the time. They are two distinct boundaries to me. Guess they're not to you. Further insight in to why our positions are so dissimilar.
Bestiary 1, the CRB's direct counterpart, has "monsters as PC" rules with many templates including lycanthropes which get pounce by taking many were-forms. There are several avenues to that goal.
Now who's raising the bar ^_- And even if I were to accept that the bestiary should be included in our discussion you're referring to the section that in the first paragraph states
"Monsters are not designed with he rules for players in mind and as such can be very unbalancing if not handled carefully."
and ends with
"GMs should carefully consider any monster PCs in their groups. some creatures are simply not suitable for play as PCs"
For my money any "option" that specifically calls out rule zero as being needed to maintain balance aren't where you want to hang your hat in a balance/power creep conversation.
- Torger
Does it give them to pure martials? There's a big difference between a druid getting pounce when he wild shapes and a full BaB pure martial class getting pounce all the time. They are two distinct boundaries to me. Guess they're not to you. Further insight in to why our positions are so dissimilar.
Sure, go to the Magic Items chapter and create one with a constant or use/day effect. They can even take the master craftsman feat and do it themselves without needing a caster.
Now who's raising the bar ^_- And even if I were to accept that the bestiary should be included in our discussion you're referring to the section that in the first paragraph states
"Monsters are not designed with he rules for players in mind and as such can be very unbalancing if not handled carefully."
and ends with
"GMs should carefully consider any monster PCs in their groups. some creatures are simply not suitable for play as PCs"
For my money any "option" that specifically calls out rule zero as being needed to maintain balance aren't where you want to hang your hat in a balance/power creep conversation.
- Torger
While the CRB and Bestiary 1 were released together and comprise the core of the game, that's a fine judgement call. However, as I've always said in this thread, the CRB bookends the power scale. I've never deviated from that stance and won't. Even if something requires GM adjudication, the baseline of the game allows for it.
Sure, go to the Magic Items chapter and create one with a constant or use/day effect. They can even take the master craftsman feat and do it themselves without needing a caster.
Ah, I see. If you're assuming that the magic item creation rules... No. I'm not calling them rules, they're specifically called out as suggestions.
If you're assuming that that the magic item creation suggestions will always allow you to create a magic item that grants a specific ability then yes, no new option could possibly raise the ceiling on that because all options that exist or ever possibly could exist are included within them.
Nice tautology.
I prefer to assume that DMs will exercise their discretion as specifically called out and not allow the creation of certain custom designed magic items.
But ok, I can see that as I suspected sometime ago neither of us is changing the others mind.
Thanks for a civil discussion regardless, good gaming to you.
- Torger
|
I admit, I have no real problem with traits, splat, or power creep, in fact I embrace it. I love having more options and am fine with the ceiling being raised. That's just me, I also like to optimize, this game is as much about Mechanics (and battle tactics) as it is RP and story telling.
To me a lot of this discussion seems odd (note: I don't mean wrong or bad, just odd). Are some traits better than others (and many feats)? Yeah, I guess I don't care, honestly it excites me that some are better.
But for the most part traits don't do anything but provide reasonable options and I don't so how that is a problem even if optomizng isn't your thing. I also agree with whoever mentioned it (don't remember off hand) but most traits help suboptimal concepts far more than the optimal ones. I don't see how this is bad.
Again, these are just my opinions, I realize many people differ.
Some traits are for sure better than others, some traits are better than feats are.
I didn't allow them in my current campaign, but I did allow Mythic.
I will allow them in my future games, and am looking forward to picking them for a game I am about to join.
Powergamers will use them to powergame, roleplayers will use them to roleplay. Getting these two types of gamers to work together is more a social thing than a rules thing.
I'm rather fond of River Rat (I'm convinced you can make a useful character that only fights with daggers, the swim bonus is just gravy), and will likely take as my other trait Rich Parents (I think that is what it's called)-900 gold at level one? Yes please!
Would I take a trait that raised my Elven Witches slumber hex? Of course. I made the build around Slumber, not gonna lie...
I think PLAYERS need to police each other during character creation, it shouldn't be up to the GM. If everyone makes OP characters, the GM doesn't have to stress about balance...
|
Traits are really dependent on a character.
Some traits MAKE a character. I have a few characters whose builds completely fall apart without their traits.
I also have characters whose traits are just 'reactionary and dangerously curious' because they were an afterthought. It really depends on the build.
Overall, two traits put together have the power of about a feat. Traits basically give characters an extra feat, spread out and somewhat limited.
I really like traits because they can allow an otherwise cool but unplayable character concept become playable. I've never seen them really 'break' a character though. I mean, you can certainly break a character without traits, or have a non-broken character with traits.
I suppose my response is 'it depends.' Yes, you can have fun without traits though. I've seen it multiple times, in core-only games. Would be fun to have them, but not required.